Antihumanism

Has the religion of Humanism ran it’s course? You could say Humanism has been the dominant ideology of our times. It has many forms, most notably individualism and collectivism. What did man worship before the dawn of Humanism, before the Renaissance? He placed God, above himself. Now, some people are beginning to place nature above themselves, man being just another insignificant quirk of nature, or evil even… a cancer, or a virus. Deny it not, you can see the doctrine of Humanism manifested throughout. From the idea that each individual has positive and/or negative rights, to the idea that each individual is somehow unique, special. You could say the enlightenment attempted to deify the individual, making each man, and eventually and perhaps inevitably, each woman sovereign over their life and property, where as before, the individual was subjugated/had duties first to God, then to church and state, then to community and family, and finally to himself. You can see it in the way Westerners have this sense of selfentitlement. Life in the middle ages was a life of sacrifice. You can still see this mentality in foreigners, in the way they constantly and continually sacrifice themselves for their family and religion. When a westerner’s (and those who have been westernized) wants and needs come into conflict with his family and religion (if he even has a family and a religion), he often readily divorces himself from them. Yes you can see it in the way modern man hoardes vast sums of wealth and possessions, in his materialism, in the way he consumes vast sums of drugs, alcohol and food, in his hedonism. In the way sex has become more about pleasure than procreation. Americans are the most obese humans on the planet… is it any wonder, are they not exemplars of this selfindulgent, western way of living, are they not the most western society on the planet, geographically and spirtually? When you only recognize one entity as having value (the individual), you naturally neglect the intrinsic and even the extrinsic value of other entities (God, nature) to their detriment and even your detriment. Perhaps the time has come to reassess and reevaluate the individual’s importance in the scheme of things. Are you really that important, are you really worth it? Perhaps you don’t need a house, a car, and a career. Maybe you should be dead, or in a workcamp. I’m sure the 21st century will see the waning of humanism and the waxing of… something else, I’m just not sure what? What, if anything, shall we replace it with… nothing, Nihilism, environmentalism, extradimensionalism, extraterrestrialism, robotism, transhumanism? How 'bout a more radical, concrete form egoism and individualism, where I am sovereign, I, eyesinthedark, am sovereign over you and yours, and I will kill you and take your possessions if I see fit, or perhaps a return to medieval, Catholic or Confucian, hierarchical values; God over the Angels, the Angels over the church, the church over the state, the state over the community, the community over the family, the family over the man, the man over the woman, and the woman over the children. You know what, anything, I’ll take anything over Humanism, especially negative individualism, I’m sick of it. Perhaps an eclectic synthesis? ? ?

How 'bout Neotribalism or Gangsterism, my friends/family over your friends/family. How 'bout Sophocracy, Philosophers should rule over all, only they can know/say who or what has value. Yes the cult of Individualism and Humanism has been slowly unraveling in my mind. Let’s get creative here—

I believe the Individual has value in themselves but i’ve never cared for individualism , it seems contradictory too nature and civilization and in my mind it supports narcissism, selfishness and arrogance which are harmful to civilzation and the individual themselves.

I’d rather have nothing, no humanism nor any ‘-ism’, as soon as you stick a label on it you confine it. Better to take each and every thing alone and in its course, as if each thing and every instance to be its own world to wit we may ascribe values or faultlessness [which should be primary imho].

Right, I think that multiple entities have halfvalue, not just individual humans. Perhaps nothing has wholevalue (see A sea of nothing).

I’m sorry, but that’s not the way my brain works, I seem to be the most ism obsessed philosopher on this forum… and I don’t care, I’m proud of my ismism. I need a compass, a path, a way… an ism. I need to understand the whole, somehow everything is connected, my mind craves order, whether it’s an optimistic order, or not. You see, this isn’t just fun and games for me, I have to know, I have to understand, or I’ll die.

How rare, an interesting thread not written by myself.

You deserve a bump.

Nah, I beat you. I’m an Ismist.

In fact, I’m an Istist. I’m taking it to the next level.

How about treating others as you would want to be treated? Are you trying to dream up a system of of human interaction? It seems like any division that is based upon a group doing what it wants to do isn’t going to maximize happiness. Ideally, everyone would be out to do what is in the collective interest of the society to the best of their abilities. The problem is that we already tried communism and it didn’t work. Perhaps, a small group of inspired individuals could organize a society that more or less forced people to do what was in the states interest. The problem is that whenever government tries to control a group of people the society becomes unruly. We have to control the thoughts of the society towards an end that is good. With modern technology it would be much easier to control the minds of the individuals in a society. Perhaps, communism failed because the technology was not adequate to control people to the extent that was necessary for ultimate efficiency. We could set up cameras in places where people worked to make sure that they were being as productive as possible. One of the problems with communism was that it was difficult to place those who were not already working, when communism took hold, in work that would allow these individuals to get better at what they were doing. This makes sense because the economic situation would not have provided those who were in school with the incentive to go into jobs that paid more money. This means that those who could have been skilled workers ended up as non-skilled workers. This means that you would have a society that was full of non-skilled workers. This coupled with the inability to enforce quota limits on the society would have produced a shut down of the economy. Perhaps, technology will allow the brain scans of individuals so that we can know what individuals will be good at. The government can then force those who are good at certain jobs to do those jobs. Those who do not do what they are capable will be thrown into prison. With new technologies the government could make sure that there aren’t any attempts to overthrow the government underway by monitoring the internet. The main point is that technology may allow communism to be successful in the future.

Thanks, I thought you’d like it.

I think so, rather than place all value/sovereignty in the individual human, I was thinking of a hierarchy of value/sovereignty, or no value/sovereignty. The highest being the Gods, followed by humans, then mammals/birds, animals, plants, matter, the lowest being nonbeing. Collectivism/majoritarianism (the many) would be placed above individualism/minoritarianism (a few), and men of high quality (philosophers, scientists) above men of low quality (artisans, agrarians). This is not to say individuals, minorities and mediocrities would have no positive/negative rights, just less.

In addition to a hierarchy of entities, there is a hierarchy of goods. Survival is more valuable than happiness, reason is more valuable than emotion. That is not to say we should never pursue joy, just that survival should come first, unless one is starved of joy.

Yes, I’m trying to address this problem. Instead of giving a political and/or philosophical party absolute power, and thus, absolute value, we should give them more power, and thus, more value.

I call this new philosophy, Hierarchism.

I have to say, this all sounds rather imbalanced and souless to me. I was thinking of something more beautiful, more organic… more human (ironically).

Like you said, communism has failed, and I think inidivdualism has failed. It’s time for something altogether new, nevermind smith and marx.